Equal Value In Relationships

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, but that model is even more repulsive to me.

I don't do courtship because I expect a worthwhile relationship. I do it because I enjoy it, and to tell the truth, courtship often can be much more passionate and enjoyable than a 20 year old relationship. I believe in enjoying every step of it, and I don't expect it to become better or worse over time. Therefore, there is no evident connection to investment. It's similar to the fact that you collect more resources as go get older, but when you are very old you are unlikely to be able to enjoy them, and when you die, you cannot take any of that with you.

But that's now. When you marry her, it's unlikely that you would be able to keep your finances separated. If you are not careful you can marry into quite a lot of debt.

Exactly my opinion.

Ahh, but that is exactly how it works. Or "You can use my beauty at social gatherings so you get higher status, but then I want to shop a lot for your money because I'm worth it. If you cannot provide me with the money, I'll find somebody that can". We see these kinds of things all the time, and so it really works that way whether you like it or not.



That's how narcissists operate. If they cannot get immediate satisfaction they will go elsewhere, and you just let them do it for your own good. You don't want to bother with shallow people that skip you because they cannot see any immediate advantages with you.

I don't think that has anything to do with transactional vs non-transactional relationships. The difference mainly is between expecting things (transactional) and doing things out of love for the other (non-transactional). To me, a transactional relationship looks more like a friendship, an FWB connection, or outright prostitution.

Then I would dump you very quickly Divergent goals, wouldn't work out, not worth the effort.
I built this model just to keep the economic parallel. It's not about collecting resources, rather funding a company and making it grow.

When I was younger, I thought of finding a romantic partner as finding a partner for a long, dangerous expedition, someone I would take to explore Antarctic together.
Yes, courtship is pleasant but I did know I wanted a lifelong relationship since I was 12. And I do enjoy every stage of it

Provided attractivity has anything to do with relationships....



I find the notion that affection is earned by social actions, attractivity or personality-traits pretty off-putting.



I find chimps an incredibly bad role model of NDs. Maybe NTs are like chimps, but I feel I have absolutely nothing in common with them. I find orangutans a lot more appealing as a role model.



Sure, and keeping track of tit for tat creates extreme stress for many NDs, something that definitely lowers lifespan.

Besides a several years long infatuation creates hyper-high oxytocin levels, and basing a relationship on positive emotions rather than transactions that causes lots of stress, seems much better and both increase lifespan.

I'd use creating a family instead. That is a way to build something for the future, but it is not an "investment" or a "transaction". Unless you expect your children to provide for you when they become grown-ups.



I'd find that appealing.

You know, at this point, after reading all of this I would guess that the vast majority of those pushing the transactional model are either alone or go through relationships like Cheetos... And I would also suggest that those of us who are finding it disgusting are in or have been in decent long term fulfilling relationships... Just a guess here.

And The_Face_of_Boo that meme is beyond repulsive and degrading to women and men.

Transactional relationships are an exchange of value for value. When values overlap, the two people involved engage in ongoing trade. As long as both value each other, they will remain in a relationship.

People should not feel compelled to stay IAR with someone they do not love. If two people discover they do not share the same values nor value each other, they are free to break up. Keeping high standards and making sure your mate actually WANTS to be with you is a good thing. You have every right to expect your mate to treat you with decency and respect. You have the right to determine what if any other conditions there may be for a relationship.

Non-transactional relationships make no logical sense. I’m not disputing the logical possibility. You can logically have a non-transactional relationship. It’s not a problem in theory. It’s a problem in application. It’s not rooted in reality. I believe you’ve admitted to polyamory, so non-transactional, NSA relationships are your bread and butter. You may value one person or another, but not enough to reward that person with monogamy.

That is your choice, of course, but it’s not desirable for those who value exclusivity. The problem of polyamory is a matter of market saturation. You don’t value yourself enough to restrict your availability. You give away something of value for free.

If this is purely non-transactional, then you don’t even get pleasure from it. If you don’t get any pleasure from it, what purpose are you doing this for?

Maybe it’s hedonistic, in which case it IS transactional, but you’re only concerned with the purely pleasurable aspect of it. But then you’re operating on primal instinct—emotions, the thrill of the moment. You are behaving in the absence of a mind. There’s no shame in clearing the head once in a while, to taking a break, or letting go of inhibitions. But I do question the wisdom of living a lifestyle making rash decisions.

On the other hand, if you’re living only for the sake of others and take nothing for yourself, you’re living in slavery. Not everyone agrees to live this way. If you live a life of giving, that implies there are takers out there, parasites who have no lasting interest in your well-being. Maybe YOU are the taker, the parasite. Then you are perpetually unhappy because the givers never give enough. Non-transactional relationships are the stuff of pie-in-the-skie mysticism. The message sounds good, but it never quite works out in practice. All it does is create relationships between parasites and their victims.

Transactional relationships can become permanent, ongoing relationships in which partners engage in lifelong trade of value. I’ve been with the same person almost 20 years now.

ROFLMAO This is LITERALLY what is wrong with this whole thread! Who on earth could consider something like that a "reward"? It is both baffling and ridiculous to the point of laughing so hard it hurts! I have been with my husband for 18 years. He is monogamous. He is ok with me being poly. I'm wired differently than he is and he gets that because we have a loving relationship and care about each other as people and for who we are. There is no tit for tat, no checklists. We are simply loving life partners raising a family the best we can and understanding that each of us is different, unique and special for who they are.

MOD EDIT

That what makes it funny.

And you need to chill a bit.

Most people do. I'm not saying that makes it right or that proves a point, but you asked. The majority of people out there are not polyamorous.

But it IS a reward, yes. You value a person enough to give yourself exclusively to that person in exchange for his companionship, trading one priceless object (you) for another (him).

The real trick is that you are not living for another person. You are living for yourself. It is the man you want, and you consider him worth enough that you don't want to share yourself with anyone else. Monogamy is the highest reward one can give another.


Why? It makes the most logical sense.


That's a self-esteem issue. He doesn't consider himself worthy of having a loyal wife.


I understand being wired differently. That's fine. But your understanding is not rooted in reality.

MOD EDIT

I can agree with all of this except one point. I don't believe partaking in polyamory or promiscuity necessarily means one doesn't value themselves, but in my view it shows that they value hedonism over commitment.